Day 12, Friday, October 20: If you use Signal (Il suffira de Signal..)
from Paris-luttes.info
Witnesses
An activist from Rennes testifies for C. They met during the Yellow Vests (Gilets Jaunes) in 2018. Later, they rubbed shoulders during preparations for feminist mobilizations on November 25, 2019 and March 8, 2020; also in the preparation of mobilizations with the Justice and Truth for Babacar committee [1] but also in mobilizations with undocumented migrants, notably with the requisition of an apartment building in winter 2020. She describes the desire to build a fairer world, the ideals they uphold, but also the growing repression and criminalization of these groups by the state. She paints a portrait of an activist who rejects ancestry relations and advocates non-violent means of action, a world away from the apocalyptic vision constructed by the DGSI and the public prosecutor’s office.
Next, a witness for S. takes the stand. He is a fire chief at Disney and has been his colleague for over 7 years. He describes S. as a very good, serious and trustworthy fireworker. With the help of the lawyers, his intervention demystified many of the elements developed by the prosecution on the 1st days.
The fireworks diploma is obtained after 5 days’ training, 3 of which are devoted to the laws in force. Otherwise, all the real training takes place in the field; there is no school for show pyrotechnics or cinema special effects in France, and the latter remains a very closed field. All pyrotechnicians are passionate about their craft, and seek to progress. So, yes, it’s normal and common to experiment with explosives when a special effects order has to be met, just as it’s normal for a pyrotechnician to be constantly walking around with his tools. Yes, “do it yourself” is omnipresent, because you have to know how to repair and adapt to customer requests, which implies modifying standardized products, because when it comes to special effects, what is required does not, by definition, exist before the order is placed, “you have to be MacGyver”. In fact, he did just that when the army commissioned him for an event.
Of course, the fireworker is in contact with dangerous products, and yes, he can transport and store them in reasonable quantities, but these limits are indicated in the diploma. So having 2kg of black powder at home – which you can easily recover by opening firecrackers bought in the shops – is really no big deal. And what could be more trivial than finding fireworks equipment in a fireworker’s car, apartment or even bag? Finally, the lawyer got him to react to a sentence from the explosives expert (whose field of expertise is definitely the DGSI’s small, well-defined lab, with a precise order and a well-defined result in advance, tailor-made to fit into the picture of the perfect terrorist – the customer is king there too). A week ago, the expert, proud of his science, proclaimed: “Artifice is one thing, explosive is another”. Here again, the artificer sets the record straight: it doesn’t make sense that “an artifice is an explosive anyway, which is why there are rules and diplomas”, which S possesses… quod erat demonstrandum.
Means of communication and IT tools
Basically, for the DGSI, judges and prosecutors, using Signal, Protonmail and Linux is enough to be 1) highly info-savvy, and 2) shady. So Tails, you can’t imagine…
First of all, it’s up to C. and L. to justify their use of these innocuous tools, so commonplace and “boilerplate” for them, that “it’s like driving on the right, it’s all the same”. The questions asked prove above all that judges and prosecutors are, or pretend to be, well-versed in these tools. One judge speaks of an “arsenal of discretion” when it comes to using Signal, Linux and Protonmail; the judge asks whether a Tails presentation workshop might not have an aura of illegality about it… Their questions and the proceedings show that it’s necessary to be wary of surveillance, whether commercial or state, and to use this kind of software!
Both have refused to give their phone and computer unlock codes, and are being prosecuted for this refusal. They hold their position in the name of preserving their privacy. For both of them, refusing to give the unlock codes was the only thing they had left to preserve their privacy, to show that they didn’t agree with what they were being accused of, in the face of everything they were enduring in police custody and during the investigation. As they were being interrogated by the DGSI, they were convinced that their computers and phone would be decrypted anyway. It turns out that a certain amount of encrypted data could not be exploited. Just saying…
C. was also questioned about the brochures found on a USB stick: of the dozens that were on it, the DGSI retained only a handful, using its secret magnifying glass effect to create fear. The DGSI set its sights on the “Burn your school” brochure (a series of satirical tales about school), documents on anarchist principles, an article in Ballast about an imprisoned Turkish novelist and activist opportunely presented as belonging to the PKK, which she has always denied, a brochure on Action Directe and one on the Toulouse squat. And here C. is questioned about her possession of these brochures on a USB key… Everyone is taken aback that she has to justify this. But that doesn’t stop the judge/prosecutor duo: the president wants to know if it’s not a contradiction to keep “Brûler son école” (Burn your school) on a key when you claim to be committed to popular education; the prosecutor wants C.’s opinion on revolutionary violence in general (in relation to Action Directe), then wants to know if C. considers Action Directe to be “terrorists”. Their questions provoke stunned laughter in the room, to which the president takes great pleasure in berating the audience in a professorial tone and giving lessons in respect. But then again, if she and the prosecutor didn’t spout so much nonsense…
A developer of the Silence application/jurist with La Quadrature du Net then testifies on the subject of communication tools.
He gives an overview of encryption and the best practices of defendants with regard to digital tools. He uses slides, including quotes from the DGSI, taken from the case file. A few points that stand out: encryption is everywhere, consubstantial with the digitization of lives, and essential for protection against cyber threats. Encrypting your data is widely recommended, including by institutions, and far from being evidence of secrecy, as it means exercising your fundamental right to privacy. He then goes on to describe some of the software discussed in the dossier: Signal, Tor, Linux, Tails and e/os/. For each, he describes the principle and the advantages of using it to protect your privacy, particularly from GAFAM.
In passing, he points out the errors made by the DGSI in the quotations, errors which conveniently tend to build up a criminal image of the use of this software. These jabs at the incompetence of DGSI agents were not to the liking of the chairwoman, who did not hesitate to cut the witness off repeatedly if she was not happy with what he was saying. No doubt a mark of respect from the judge. To drive the point home and show who has the upper hand in the room, she reprimands him for using the word “criminalization”.
This is followed by a lunar moment in which an assessor seems to suggest that the witness become an expert for the courts (she must have loved the slides, we have to admit it was well done), then a hallucinating scene in which the prosecutor threatens the witness with legal action! He accuses him/her of having had access to documents in the case file and of having put quotes from the minutes in his/her presentation slides, in short, of violating the secrecy of the investigation. Ah, when the DGSI’s bullshit is unpacked in public, the PNAT is angry! Fortunately, the defense lawyers came to the witness’s rescue and sent the prosecutor back to the ropes. By pointing out that in the middle of the investigation, a well-known journalist from a brown media had knowingly violated the secrecy of the investigation, divulged identities and elements of hearings and searches, and that a complaint had been lodged against him: the witness can rest assured that the complaint ended up in the dustbin of justice. 2 weights 2 measures…
Detention conditions
The final witness of the day is the former Director General of ACAT, an NGO that fights cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, torture and capital executions. He testifies on the solitary confinement LibreFLot suffered in pre-trial detention. During his 15 months in detention, F. spent more than a year in solitary confinement by administrative decision, and only came out of it after a hunger strike. The witness describes the isolation, the deprivation of meaningful human contact, the visceral boredom. He gives a list of physical and psychological symptoms developed by all those who undergo solitary confinement, which explains very well the difficulties under which the interviews with the investigating judge were conducted: in all cases, solitary confinement inflicts severe suffering on the detainees, and the symptoms are long-lasting. This suffering was endured by F. himself, as evidenced by his prison correspondence. Isolation is an extreme prison practice [2], akin to cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment.
Next week: Tuesday 24th is as busy as ever. There will be the hearing of the other defendants on the communication tools, the hearing on the conditions of detention, and the personality investigations. Wednesday 25, prosecutor’s closing arguments.
Notes :
[1] : Babacar Gueye was killed by policemen on December 3, 2015
[2] : He calls it “dungeon”